I write this on February 17, the fifth anniversary of Kosovo’s "independence." I’m putting the word in scare quotes because Kosovo is anything but an independent nation: it is, in reality, dependent on NATO, the European Union, and the US for the most basic functions of a state: keeping order and maintaining a judicial system. A multinational force known as KFOR, numbering some 6,000 troops – including 1,447 American soldiers – keeps a semblance of order in the former Serbian province, if one interprets the word "order" quite loosely.

It has been 14 years since the Kosovo war started, and the conflict continues in spite of the "liberation," and the establishment of the Kosovar state. Serbs are routinely subjected to violence by ethnic gangs and the Kosovo police, their homes attacked: practically every church in the country has been burned or otherwise vandalized. The last Serb enclave, in the northern town of Mitrovica, has been under siege for years, with KFOR playing referee between the two ethnic factions. The Serbs of Mitrovica have been resisting being placed under the authority of the so-called Kosovo Protection Corps, which serves as the ruling party’s enforcers, and has links to organized crime.

The judiciary is administered by the EU for the simple reason that the ruling party, Hashim Thaci’s Democratic Party of Kosovo, combines the characteristics of an ethnic clan and an organized crime syndicate. They don’t call Kosovo a "mafia state" for nothing.

It is well known that Kosovo is the heroin capital of Europe, the key transit point for supplies of the drug coming from Afghanistan. A report prepared for the German intelligence service says Prime Minister Thaci, formerly head of the US-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, is the chief figure in a "criminal network operating throughout Kosovo," and that he and other key Kosovar government officials "are intimately involved in inter-linkages between politics, business, and organized crime structures in Kosovo." As head of the Lluca crime family, Thaci is a formidable figure in the Albanian Mafia, which controls the heroin traffic, extorts businesses, and has even engaged in organ trafficking.

A 2010 Council of Europe report [.pdf] stated that Thaci leads the so-called Drenica Group, which was accused of taking organs from Serb prisoners. Carla del Ponte, the head of the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, said she was prevented from investigating the organ-selling operation, but the recent appearance of a new witness has apparently given new life to the investigation. Leaked NATO documents describe Xhavit Haliti, leader of the Democratic Party’s parliamentary fraction and a close ally of Thaci’s, as heavily involved in drugs, prostitution, and weapons smuggling. Human trafficking is so endemic that the EU refuses to liberalize its visa requirements for Kosovo residents.

The economic picture is dismal. Unemployment is at a stunning 45 percent. Foreign investment is kept away by political corruption. The country’s telecom system was supposed to have been privatized by now, but this has been indefinitely delayed on account of corruption charges: an investment group headed by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Albright Capital Management, was reportedly getting preferred treatment by the Thaci regime, and was forced to withdraw their bid. Thaci, you’ll recall, was seen as a protégé of Albright’s during and after the Kosovo war.

Ilir Deda, director of the Kosovo Institute for Policy Research, lays the blame for the lack of foreign investment on successful efforts by the government to protect entrenched business and political interests:

"This government has proved quite successful at expelling every serious investor since 2008 who was willing to come here and invest here. Investors from Austria, Switzerland, and France have complained over corruption where they wanted to invest, regardless of privatization.

"Any investigation that leads to big political players in Kosovo is stopped for the sake of political stability – and it feeds on the culture of impunity, political impunity, that has been created in Kosovo in the last 12 years. Short-term stability [is favored] rather than midterm stability or long-term stability."

That is what KFOR/NATO have accomplished in the 14 years since the war – short term "stability" that cements the foundations of the Mafia’s power and just manages to keep a lid on an explosive situation. What that war produced has been nothing less than a Mafia state in uneasy coexistence with its Serbian neighbor, and at odds with a substantial portion of its own citizens. Kosovo today is a political and economic basket case, requiring the constant infusion of funds from the NATO countries, as well as vigilant policing, in order to keep a bad situation from getting worse.

The possibility that the region could explode in yet another paroxysm of violence is very real. A largely symbolic recent meeting between the Presidents of Kosovo and Serbia is seen by many members of the beleaguered Serbian minority as the prelude to a sell-out by Belgrade and the completion of the ethnic cleansing of the country. Serbia wants to enter the European Union, but the price it must pay is recognition of Kosovo’s independence. The Serbs of Mitrovica are pawns in a political deal that will leave them at the mercy of Thaci’s thugs.

Kosovo provides us with an object lesson in the dangers inherent in the misguided "humanitarian interventionism" promulgated by Western liberal elites. In the name of our alleged "responsibility to protect," the Western powers, led by the United States, enabled the creation of a gangster state which cannot govern itself and poses a danger to its neighbors. Kosovo’s political leadership consists of Mafia bosses and war criminals: that they are now on schedule to organize their own army poses a threat to the peace of Europe.

The ethnic conflict that triggered the first Kosovo war has not ended: it has merely been postponed until KFOR finally gives up and leaves. This is really the great problem of the "humanitarian" imperialists: they can occupy a country, "train" their favored clients in "governance," and pour taxpayer dollars into the nation-building project – but they cannot stay forever. Once they exit, the old hatreds reemerge, and the conflict resumes.

Kosovo is the Palestine of Europe, and this is the reason for the inherent instability of the state. One solution would be partition: a "two-state" solution. But while the Europeans apparently consider this a viable option in the Middle East, they have ruled it out completely in Kosovo’s case. The Serbian government, which continues to maintain its own parallel institutions in Mitrovica, has been asked to dismantle this apparatus in order to bring the enclave into the official structures controlled by the Albanian majority. This is a recipe for continued violent conflict.

Yet several factors prevent the Europeans and their American allies from recognizing this simple fact, not the least of which is the history of the war itself. NATO went in there on the grounds that the Kosovars were a downtrodden minority subject to persecution and even "genocide," and that justice could be served only by military intervention in favor of the heroic KLA. What has happened since, however, has demonstrated that this case inverted the reality: the KLA, far from being "freedom-fighters," were a criminal gang that soon morphed into a government run by gangsters.

No doubt the Serbs committed many atrocities, as did the KLA: this is a common feature of wartime throughout history, and is unlikely to be much impacted by the moral posturing of Western leaders. Imposing a "responsibility to protect" on the Western powers, the theoreticians of interventionism are charging Washington and its allies with a Sisyphean task. The open-ended nature of such a mission is, perhaps, the key to understanding why such a fatuous doctrine finds increasing support from our political elites: it gives them the leeway to intervene anywhere, at will, in accordance with their calculated interests.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

I see Sen. Rand Paul has responded to criticism of his vote with the anti-Hagel filibusterers, coming not only from this space but also from many anti-interventionist conservatives as well as grassroots supporters of his father, Ron Paul. Failing to address any of the actual criticisms, the Senator counterposed the relative importance of the John Brennan nomination as CIA director to the Hagel brouhaha. The alleged threat of "domestic drone strikes" should be "the ‘preeminent libertarian concern," said Sen. Paul, according to the Daily Caller:

"Everybody is really excited about Hagel, but the most important question and the most important constitutional issue is whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on U.S. soil. That’s a much bigger question than Hagel."

This is a meaningless argument: opposing Brennan and supporting Hagel are hardly mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are complementary positions, which one might expect from anyone who claims to oppose an interventionist foreign policy. The unspoken subtext of the Senator’s remarks is that this is a purely partisan matter: it’s okay to oppose or obstruct one of Obama’s nominees, in the name of "principle," but supporting one – not so much.(I might add that Sen. Paul doesn’t seem to care much about drone strikes on Americans on foreign soil – which is the real issue being debated.)

Aside from that, Sen. Paul has "questions" about "Hagel’s speeches and financial information." This is really the crux of the matter: Paul the Lesser is signing on to Ted Cruz’s lunatic assertions that Hagel "may" be the recipient of funds from "North Korea or Saudi Arabia." "We can only get answers if 41 of us are willing to stand together and demand them," babbled the Senator.

You may think such an argument couldn’t get much more disingenuous, but then you haven’t heard this one:

"’You would think by some of the comments I get that Hagel is really Harry Browne,’ Paul quipped, referring to the 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Party presidential candidate. ‘They make him out to be some sort of libertarian champion, and he’s not.’"

I know of no one who has said Hagel is a libertarian: his economic views seem conventionally "moderate," and as for his foreign policy views – well, that’s what the controversy is all about, now isn’t it? Paul concedes this, admitting that "Hagel favored a ‘somewhat less aggressive foreign policy," albeit while complaining that he’s "a ‘believer in most intervention," and "listing his votes in favor of the Patriot Act, foreign aid, and the Iraq war."

Notice how Paul, the consummate opportunist, slips into sectarian mode when it suits him: Hagel, he declares, isn’t anti-interventionist enough. This from a US Senator and all-but-declared presidential candidate who has said we ought to go to war if Israel is attacked. This from the same Rand Paul who, in a recent speech, averred we ought to be "somewhere some of the time," ruling out as "isolationist" being "nowhere all of the time."

Ah, the many faces of Rand Paul – the man’s a walking contradiction wrapped inside a conundrum. The conundrum is how to retain the support – especially the financial support – of the nationwide network organized by his father’s followers, while sucking up to the same people who derided and smeared the elder Paul for his anti-interventionist views.

The ambitious junior Senator from Kentucky gives himself away when he admits that, yes indeed, Hagel favors "a somewhat less interventionist" foreign policy – which is precisely why Sen. Paul’s Republican colleagues have gone after the nominee hammer and tongs. McCain ranted against Hagel’s opposition to the sacred "surge" in Iraq. Graham all but accused him of anti-Semitism on account of Hagel’s then-and-there validated observation that the US Senate is answerable to the Israel lobby. Sen. Ayotte was horrified that Hagel would have anything to do with a group whose stated aim – the elimination of nuclear weapons from the world’s arsenals – is exactly the same as Ronald Reagan’s.

Senator Paul’s supporters are fond of accusing his libertarian critics of making the perfect the enemy of the good, and yet here is the Senator himself attacking Hagel for being insufficiently pure – while acknowledging that the President’s nominee is indeed for a "less aggressive" foreign policy. Certainly less aggressive than the policy that would have been implemented if Sen. Paul’s preferred presidential candidate had won the White House. While such a patently dishonest person as the Senator could not possibly bring himself to admit this in public, on some level he must acknowledge it and he does so by denying the significance of the debate over Hagel:

"’Do I think Hagel deserves credit for being a war hero and for speaking out against waste in the Pentagon?’ Paul asked. ‘Yes.’

"But the senator said he doubted Hagel would have much impact on the Obama administration’s foreign policy. ‘I’m not sure Obama is less interventionist than Bush,’ Paul said."

Whether or not Obama is less interventionist than a President who invaded and occupied two Middle Eastern countries and initiated an open-ended global "war on terrorism" remains to be seen, but what are we to make of arguments against a cabinet nominee who clearly favors a less activist role for the US clothed in the raiments of "anti-interventionism"? I’d call it the sectarianism of convenience.

Hagel is no libertarian: I never said he was. He voted for the Iraq war, with reservations, like many Republicans, but later became one of its most passionate and articulate critics. This is the real reason why the War Party in Congress opposes him, and why Sen. Paul’s neoconservative buddies are expending so much energy in their relentless jihad against him. In voting against cloture – and giving as a reason the desire to get more "information" about alleged contributions from North Korea (!) and the nonexistent "Friends of Hamas" to Hagel’s speaking fees – Sen. Paul is aiding and abetting a disgusting McCarthyite campaign against an honorable man.

For shame, Senator Paul. Although I’m resigned to the fact that this means nothing to the shameless, I’m going to say it again anyway: For shame!

Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Forward by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

Buy my biography of the great libertarian thinker, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books,2000), here.

When for crying out loud can we stop being this stupid and naive? None of this is an "accident", or "mistaken" belief — it is a plan.
Support for crime families of Kosovo is not a case of not knowing. Kosovo being the center of heroin trade of Europe, as well as human trafficking, prostitution and organs trade — was never news to Western leaders. Just like today — we are acting innocent as the armies of Salafis do our bidding. We are here with money, arms, communications gear, intelligence. Once in a while we demure a bit when name like Al-Qaeda gets mentioned — but what is the difference? Crime bosses, crime families, and religious extremists have been the most reliable allies on the ground. Taci can run his crime, pay up for the priviledged Kabul-Pristina link for tons of heroin — and have NATO countries feed his population. And keep on stirring up more fights in the neighborhood — which neatly dovetails with NATO plans. Criminals and religious Salafi fanatics — all the products of uneducated, empowerished world — are our best human drones.

Kyle

You have no idea about Kosovo so shut up . Religion Al Qaeda ? Really aww i feel bad for you how little you know.

Spot on Mr. Raimondo on Rand Paul. Sen. Rubio is doing him two better on his visit to the Middle East. He will visit Jordan and the head of the Palestinian entity in addition to Israel which Sen. Paul visited last month.

As an aside its strange that no one seems to consider the nations closest to the USA [like South America, Mexico,et al] worthy of being visited as Israel is.

carroll price

It is very clear that Rand Paul is positioning himself for a presidential run. And that he is aware that in order get into a two-horse presidential race race, where both horses are owned by by the same power structure, he must first knell and kiss the lower back side of every Zionist from Washington to Tel Aviv. I offered my financial and moral support to his father Ron Paul, but I'll be damned if I'll offer this little runt anything other than my disrespect and contempt.

MichaelKenny

I recall commenting many years ago on this website that the secret for Serbia was to get in to the EU with Kosovo still incorporated in it. At that point, anyone who tried to separate Kosovo from Serbia would be up against the entire EU. I think it was for that very reason that the Usual Suspects in the US manipulated Kosovo to independence when they did. Like the attack on the euro, it was just another “stunt” in the Kissingerite policy of undermining the EU, with all the people of Kosovo, Serbs and Albanians alike, being cynically used as pawns in that game. Those people are now posing piously as “defenders” of the Serbs against the “dastardly” EU and the conveniently Muslim Albanians. But, of course, they haven’t undermined the EU, nor even turned the Serbs against it. All that they’ve done is create a Northern Ireland-style conflict which will probably be solved only by partition and will leave a legacy of bitterness for years to come. Moral of the story: beware of American manipulators!

Kyle

Your so stupid .

Kmansfield

The US covertly sponsored the US. There is nothing like a one stop shop for a vote on universally applied graft.

You mean the Chuck Hagel that sponsored a bill to send troops to Kosovo? The same one that voted for every war he could and the PATRIOT Act? He has no anti-war or non-intervention bona fides yet you hold him up as some sort of hero just because he once said something that was no completely supportive of Israel, a state he regularly supports. You are the worst sort of hypocrite: the kind that believes your own lies.

chris

this is more of a question than a comment, but I assue that the real reason why the US supported the KLA in the first place was to rack up a measly point on the side of supporting muslims, in order to trump it up around the world that we do that too. Like the official soviet election results which were listed as 99,9% to 0,1%; the Kosovo thing was the US' 0,1% fairness doctrine
(either this was the reason or the Lewinski dictations)

Kosovo happened primarily because Clinton was having "woman troubles" at the time. As a result, his approval ratings were taking a beating. Plus, liberal, left-wingers in control of the White House at that time were just as much in favor of foreign interventions as right wingers have always been. The same left wing liberals who demanded George Bush's head on a platter are the same left-wing liberals who now support and defend Obama for committing even worse crimes than George Bush.

SCARRED

YOU GUYS ARE SO STUPID YOU HAVEE NO IDEA WHAT THE SERBIANS DID NOT ONLY TO THE KOSOVAR ALBANIANS BUT TO THE BOSNIANS AS WELL . GO SAY THIS STUFF THE GIRLS WHO WERE RAPED AND TORTURED AND THE MEN THAT WERE BRUTALLY MURDERED . BOHOO BURNED CHURCHES THE SERBIANS NOT ONLY BURNED CHURCHES BUT WITH PEOPLE INSIDE THEM . THE REASON IM WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS IS BECAUSE THE FRUSTRATION THAT NOBODY UNDERSTANDS ITS MUCH MORE THAN YOUR SMALL MINDEN POLITICS NO MATTER HOW BAD THE ECONOMY OR POVERTY IS THERE IS STILL HOPE FOR CHANGE IT IS MUCH BETTER THAN BEING RUNNED DOWN BY SERBIAN PIGS . MY COUSINS WERE RAPED IN FRONT THERE FAMILY MEMBERS AND TORTURED WITH CIGARS. YOU PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO ANALYZE FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOME GO SEE WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING AND TALK TO ALBANIANS AND BOSNIANS .

Marko

Thank you Mr. Raimondo for a good, and well-sourced overview of the Kosovo conflict.

Peter RV

The best account on Kosovo situation. It should make serb competitors ashamed, they would never dare to compere Kosovo to Palestine.
Rand Paul, of course, is developing into a first class- trash.

dink

Conventional wisdom says Chuck Hagel is going to get the nomination. (Even Graham (SC-R and McCain (AZ-R) think he is going to get the nomination). If Rand Paul thinks 'he likes the ring' of being president, then I think he has drank some sort of self delusional Kool-Aid. The system does not work that way for such a junior Senator. Mr Raimondo is going in all out anti-Rand Paul mode if the tweet quoted is true: "It’s time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott,” Raimondo tweeted. “No $$, no support, & start calling him Paul the Lesser.” ( http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/14/ron-paul-suppor… )
Is Rand Paul, a Obama like politician more than a person with principle? Is
kissing AIPAC butt with sugar-plum-fairy-dreams of being President really what is going on? And/or are anti-interventionist Republicans just a legend in their own mind? The fact is they do not have the numbers, yet. Yes, their rhetoric sounds sexy. But do they have the hardcore voting numbers? Is this the reason Rand is twisting and turning with the wind of the Republican party? Instead of being a turncoat like Mr Raimondo suggest, is he just ideologically immature?

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].